There are attitudes in the modern church which demonstrate spiritual hostility to the teachings of Jesus.  The most immediate of these can be effectively termed "Pious Humanism," the worship of what is human in the place of that which is of God.

Pious humanism is supported by the church doctrine of inclusiveness, one of those characteristics which is currently taken to be foundational, and at the heart of Christian teachings.  It is a doctrine that God is open to the hearts of all men, if only they will turn to him.

The ungodliness of pious humanism is not in its caring attitude, which is in full accord with the teachings and witness of Jesus, but the insistence upon God's equal care for each person as if it were some sort of human right.  This focus on the divine nature of man, instead of focus on God, is the fundamental behind pious humanism.  It places emphasis on being human, not on being God's children.

The false nature of the doctrine is shown by scriptural reference to God's witness.  Did God love the children of Pharoh as he loved the children of the chosen people?  Did God love the children of the Amelakites (who He had put to the sword) equally to the children of Israel for whose benefit they were destroyed?

To say that God really loved them equally is to promote the lesson that it is right to kill the ones you love to make way for others.  That would certainly not be a Christian doctrine.

The witness is that God does not concern Himself overly with our concept of human rights, but treats His own to unequal benefits.  God is no supporter of the equality of all men, but treats those who are in His family better than others.

The Pious Humanist will respond that this is only partly true, for God offers his benefits equally to all.  It is that only the few actually respond.

Such a teaching is discordant with scriptural truth.  God did not offer the first born of Egypt a chance to accept him before He destroyed them.  Neither was it offered to the Amelakites.  What chance did God offer to a child in the womb of an Amelakite woman?

Pious humanism relies upon several key misreadings of scripture.  The first is from genesis, that man is created in God's image.  This is misread to be that all men are in God's immage.  This, naturally, assumes that God is like a man instead of the other way around, and that the bodily human form of a man is the image of God.

This effectively denies the lesson of the wheat and the tares - that there are those who were placed among the children of God by someone else.  God does not treat the wheat and tares equally.

What of the sheep and the goats.  What chance is given for the goat to choose to become a sheep?

The lessons of Jesus are strongly discordant with Pious Humanism.  Jesus taught that each tree is known by its fruit, not that the tree can grow whatever fruit it chooses to bear.  If it is an apple tree, it bears apples.  If it is a lemmon tree, it bears lemmons.

There are few scripture-based lessons clearer than the exclusiveness of the Hebrew people in their dealings with God.  The doctrine of inclusiveness is a worldly doctrine, promulgated by men who don't know any better.  It is not drawn from God witness, behavior, or teachings.

The cost of pious humanism is hard to grasp, but it goes to the heart of the faith.  With pious humanism, the church appeals to what is right and good in all men.  Without it, the church would have to preach that there is really something special about those who are called to be Christians.